The alternative is to be making bank on a far smaller outlay much more quickly with renewables.
Comment on We can do all three things at once
MrVilliam@lemmy.world 1 month agoI would. ROI takes longer, but they’re super fucking profitable as soon as they turn a profit at all. They’re generally base loaded 24/7 except for about 3-4 weeks per year for refueling outage. I’m 35, so assume 10 years to build and another 10 years before it starts profiting. I’m retired at 55. Sounds pretty good to me.
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 month ago
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Citation needed.
My state has a pair of nuclear plants built in the 70s, 40+ years ago. Not only are they not profitable. They lose lots of money every year. In 2021, these two plants lost $93 million. source - warning PDF
The only way these two nuclear plants became profitable was when Republicans were bribed by the energy company to force increased rates and fees on the citizens so the energy companies could make a profit while also gutting the green energy initiatives in the state. I’m not even exaggerating any of this. The former Republican speaker of the house is now in prison serving 20 years accepting something close to (from memory) $150 million in bribes. source
If you can tell me when nuclear power gets cheaper, I’d really like to see it. We certainly haven’t here.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Well, in Germany the government basically paid for all the R&D. Then they massively subsidised the construction. Then the nukes were profitable for a while, especially after they got to run them way past their design life. And finally, the government got stuck with most of the bill for decommissioning. So all in all, nukes are a great way for privatising profits and socialising losses, which is what our current economic system is all about.
xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
That just sounds like a shitty government huffing neoliberal bullshit. Privatizing public services is a terrible idea - just ask AirCanada.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yeah. That pretty much nails it.
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Watch out, some dickhead might accuse you of sealioning.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Wouldn’t be the first time. If someone makes a claim, they can back it up. I do.
MrVilliam@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Source for profitability of nuclear over time
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Thank you for sharing your source. I’d prefer a document instead of a 23 minute video, but it is valid for how you arrived at your conclusion.
However, the source video makes some wildly incorrect assumptions to arrive at nuclear profitability.
We have the benefit of new reactors coming online in the USA in just the last year, so our numbers are current for real world nuclear plant costs. This would be the Vogtle nuclear power station in Georgia source.
This example is even more favorable to the argument for nuclear profitability. The plant already existed prior and the recent construction was simply adding additional reactors. So there should be some economies of scale. Here’s how that shook out compared to your video:
Image
So your source wildly underestimated the cost and time to build (and likely the interest rate). Keep in mind, they also build reactor Unit 4 at about the same time (coming online about a year later). The cost of Unit 3 and Unit 4 was $35m to build and started in 2009. I was generous and only used a single reactor cost as the video’s example did for apples-to-apples comparison.
These factors destroy the argument that new modern nuclear building in the USA is profitable.